197 replies to this topic

[sv401]

with the old rule there will be even more complaints if there was a lapped car between Vettel and the second-placed driver... ("lucky for Vettel that the guy behind him first had to pass the lapped car, so Vettel has no skills" or sth like that)

 

Stupid argument. If the SC was not deployed at all, the second placed driver would still have had to lap those cars (which the leader already lapped, losing time in the process). The second driver is already gifted an advantage by eliminating the gaps, but moving the backmarkers out of the way is an additional (and avoidable) gifted advantage. Would you still think it is fair with (insert your favorite driver) leading on a 2-stop strategy with some gap but on old tyres, Vettel behind in P2 on a 3-stop strategy, and a bunch of backmarkers between them, and then the SC is deployed 10 laps before the end of the race ?

 

Of course, this unlapping rule was a knee-jerk reaction to the Singapore 2011 race, but it does not in fact make the racing more fair (just artificially "more exciting" at best), and wastes time before the restart.

[Lights]

Even though no solution is perfect, I feel the future is in speed/laptime control without the aid of a safety car and I wish more effort was done in the development of this instead on clinging onto what's known while working around its flaws with new flaws.

[BRG]

Just one car in a tire wall and for 7 laps x 2,5 minutes to clear one car and let backmarkers unlap themselves. Later in the same spot, it wasn't a problem to keep yellows to get DiResta out of the way.

Different circumstances. Ricciardo's car had a wheel missing and needed a lift to move it, di Resta's could be easily pushed away.

[nosecone]

Stupid argument. If the SC was not deployed at all, the second placed driver would still have had to lap those cars (which the leader already lapped, losing time in the process). The second driver is already gifted an advantage by eliminating the gaps, but moving the backmarkers out of the way is an additional (and avoidable) gifted advantage. Would you still think it is fair with (insert your favorite driver) leading on a 2-stop strategy with some gap but on old tyres, Vettel behind in P2 on a 3-stop strategy, and a bunch of backmarkers between them, and then the SC is deployed 10 laps before the end of the race ?

 

Of course, this unlapping rule was a knee-jerk reaction to the Singapore 2011 race, but it does not in fact make the racing more fair (just artificially "more exciting" at best), and wastes time before the restart.

 

Yes. I just tried to say that there were people who would complain even if there was the old rule. for me the old rule is better. the leader is already punished too much if the SC deployes.

 

And pitlane should be closed

Edited by nosecone, 23 September 2013 - 15:04.

[sv401]

Singapore 2011. And i did a half-hour search for comments in the "Singapre Grand Prix Race Thread" :

 

The ironic thing is that one of the reasons why there were so many backmarkers between the leaders is that Vettel built up a huge gap ahead of Button, and then people complained that the latter was "unlucky", completely ignoring the fact that without the SC he would never have had any chance to get close, and would still have needed to lap the same number of cars.

[SenorSjon]

Stupid argument. If the SC was not deployed at all, the second placed driver would still have had to lap those cars (which the leader already lapped, losing time in the process). The second driver is already gifted an advantage by eliminating the gaps, but moving the backmarkers out of the way is an additional (and avoidable) gifted advantage. Would you still think it is fair with (insert your favorite driver) leading on a 2-stop strategy with some gap but on old tyres, Vettel behind in P2 on a 3-stop strategy, and a bunch of backmarkers between them, and then the SC is deployed 10 laps before the end of the race ?

 

Of course, this unlapping rule was a knee-jerk reaction to the Singapore 2011 race, but it does not in fact make the racing more fair (just artificially "more exciting" at best), and wastes time before the restart.

 

Exactly my point. We tried this rule before and it took heaps of time in the past and it was binned for that reason. It is stupid to keep switching SC rules.

 

Different circumstances. Ricciardo's car had a wheel missing and needed a lift to move it, di Resta's could be easily pushed away.

 

I suspect it had more to do with closing gaps the first time and let the racing continue the second time. Drivers need to respect double waved yellows more when marshalls are at work. We went for years without a SC every time. And now you can do something else (paint your house, go shopping, make dinner, play a game of chess) before the SC is gone again.

Edited by SenorSjon, 23 September 2013 - 15:08.

[thiscocks]

I actually thought the rules were still there to get the backmarkers out of the way untill I saw the race. It made sure a dull race for the lead had no chance of being any less dull.

Edited by thiscocks, 23 September 2013 - 15:09.

[TimRTC]

Even though no solution is perfect, I feel the future is in speed/laptime control without the aid of a safety car and I wish more effort was done in the development of this instead on clinging onto what's known while working around its flaws with new flaws.

 

That system has its own problems:

 

1) It means that the cars are still spread out around the track - when marshals are trying to recover a vehicle then it is easiest when all the cars are in a train so they know the track will be clear once it has gone.

2) Slow moving cars can be very quiet - a coasting F1 car would be much harder to hear for the safety crew.

3) DTM has implemented driving to a delta and it has been hard for the system to calculate an appropriate delta time, leading to some drivers getting penalised for fractional infringements.

 

Driving the cars in a controlled convoy is the best way to nuteralise a race, it means the drivers don't have to worry about hitting deltas or speed targets, they just need to follow the car in front and the safety car driver can increase the speed appropriately on clear sections of track to help drivers keep the tyres warm.
 

[redreni]

Singapore 2011. And i did a half-hour search for comments in the "Singapre Grand Prix Race Thread" :

 

 

DrProzac: "Lotus in front of Button. They should return to the rule allowing backmarkers to unlap themselves."

 

NoDivergence: "Lapped traffic ruining the safety car battle"

DrProzac: "Ridiculous number of backmarkers between Vettel and Button"

Anonymous: "Stupid traffic"

GAZF1nut: "Traffic really ruins safety car opportunities."

mursuka80: "Why did they change SC rules, that backmarkers would get out the way?" 

 

So we've established the 2010 rules were unpopular with people who either can't or don't write in sentences. The number of backmarkers between Vettel and Button was the same before the SC came out as it was for the restart - how can that number, whatever it is, be "ridiculous"? Was it a ridiculous number before the SC came out, or only afterwards?

[HuddersfieldTerrier1986]

There's got to be a better way anyway than wasting time letting lapped cars drive round and then get round to the back. I wasn't happy at all that we ended up with basically 3 extra SC laps yesterday rather than 3 extra racing laps. Whether it's fair or not, I'd honestly say that if lapped cars are allowed to unlap themselves, then if it's before the end of S2, then the SC comes in that lap. If they're not caught up, so be it, but yesterday was an absolute farce with slow cars driving not at full speed around a track that on a normal lap is over 1min45 while the rest of them were sat around likely thinking "come on, this is stupid, just bring the SC in, we could've gone racing ages ago.

[artista]

*bump*
This was awfull. Just one car in a tire wall and for 7 laps x 2,5 minutes to clear one car and let backmarkers unlap themselves. Later in the same spot, it wasn't a problem to keep yellows to get DiResta out of the way.
...

Both accidents didn't take place in the same spot and there is a very simple reason why SC was deployed when Ricciardo crashed but not when di Resta crashed: Ricciardo's car was on track while di Resta's car was off-track in a run off area and, therefore, double-yellows were more than enough while marshalls were working to take the car away

Edited by artista, 23 September 2013 - 15:29.

[Anderis]

Only thing i want to be changed is the pitting. People who are already past the pit entry can't pit anymore while the cars behind them can do that.

Close the pit!  The reason for a open pit under SC was the refueling, isn't it? But who the hell refuels these days??? It's banned

Well, now closing the pit is even more sophisticated than it was in the refueling era. Closed pit would be a massive boost for those who just changed their tyres and a massive disadvantage for those who were at the end of their stint.

 

I think they should ensure themselves they send SC at the moment when race leader has enough time to decide wheter he wants to pit or not. If any pit stops are forbidden, leader may well be pushed from safe lead to outside top10 if he was about to pit in the time when SC was sent out.

 

Even though no solution is perfect, I feel the future is in speed/laptime control without the aid of a safety car and I wish more effort was done in the development of this instead on clinging onto what's known while working around its flaws with new flaws.

It doesn't solve anything I'm afraid. Marshalls should focus on the job they have to do instead of avoiding cars that run around the circuit all the time. That's why SC is needed- to keep all cars together so marshalls have 2 or so minutes they don't have to be concerned about them. There is no window of speed when F1 car can run slow enough not to kill or seriously hurt the marshall and fast enough to ensure enough cooling for engines and brakes for the entire SC period.

 

My opinion is that rules should stay about the same as they are now. They just need to ensure that frontrunners have all the same chance of having a pit stop at the beginning of SC period and they don't have to wait until cars that are unlapping themselves reach the end of the queue. SC may come in as soon as all backmarkers overtake it.

[redreni]

Well, now closing the pit is even more sophisticated than it was in the refueling era. Closed pit would be a massive boost for those who just changed their tyres and a massive disadvantage for those who were at the end of their stint.

 

I think they should ensure themselves they send SC at the moment when race leader has enough time to decide wheter he wants to pit or not. If any pit stops are forbidden, leader may well be pushed from safe lead to outside top10 if he was about to pit in the time when SC was sent out.

 

My opinion is that rules should stay about the same as they are now. They just need to ensure that frontrunners have all the same chance of having a pit stop at the beginning of SC period and they don't have to wait until cars that are unlapping themselves reach the end of the queue. SC may come in as soon as all backmarkers overtake it.

 

These are random factors, though. Random occurrances are no problem for me. You can get unlucky; the SC can be called just as you pass the decision point for pit-in, and your rival who is 1 second behind you can pit and get a big advantage. I don't think the Race Director can be messing about worrying about what the impact on the competitive order is going to be before making a decision to deploy the SC - he should be thinking of the safe management of the incident, and he should only call the SC if it's necessary for that purpose. If it is necessary to call the SC, he should do it and never mind what it does to the lead battle - that's not the Race Director's concern. It's always been the case that random occurrances can affect races and championships - you can get caught up in a backmarker's accident and lose a win, or you can be the first to come up on a load of spilt oil - as a wise man once said, anything can happen in F1, and it usually does.

 

What the SC should not do is generate easily avoidable, deliberate unfairness, as opposed to incidental unfairness. E.g. if I'm leading the race and you're second, and there's 15s and three backmarkers between us; allowing the gaps between everybody to close up under the SC, so I'm first in the snake and you're fifth on the road and second in the race, with the three backmarkers in between - that's incidental unfairness inasmuch as my 15s gap has been eroded to maybe 3s at the restart. I've no problem with that as long as the purpose of the SC was to provide a period of safety of marshalls to do their work, not specifically to influence the lead battle. But if you then let the backmarkers overtake before restarting the race, that's just extra, deliberate unfairness inasmuch as it allows you to reduce the gap to next to nothing and it gives you an opportunity to attack me and maybe overtake me at the restart when previously I had you well and truly covered. It also unfairly reduces the lapped cars' gap to the leader from 1 entire lap to a matter of maybe 15s. I think we should worry about that kind of unnecessary unfairness first before worrying about whether the timing of the SC is going to randomly influence the lead battle.

[SpeedRacer`]

A couple of years ago, when the lapped traffic was passing by they would restart the race even if they hadn't caught up to the pack. I think in Canada 2011 Button was still a few seconds adrift when they started.

 

It's only recently they started waiting for everyone to catch up.

[nosecone]

According to all arguments here there is no good solution:

 

If you let the lapped cars pass the SC stays out too long (at least some complained about that)

If you don't let them pass, those who can't write a complete sentence will complain (only if their favorite driver is disadvantaged regardless of him having advantage from the SC)

If you let them pass but not catch up, the leader will soon catch them again and will be impeeded by them (or lapped cars should be more than 30s in front of the leader)

If you set the speed limit to (lets say) 100kph the cars will push to reach this limit (especially in corners which are driven with less than 100kph they will push)

If you set a minimum lap time, it will lead to many problems. Math is an A**hole.

 

there is hardly any good perfect solution. One solution is that you don't need a SC, but therefor you need those mile-long runoff-area...

 

At every solution your opinion will depend wether your favorite driver is advantaged or disadvantaged...

 

I actually have no idea for a good solution

 

Regarding closing the pits:

 

I admitedly didn't think of disadvantages the guys who have not pitted before the SC have over the guys who pitted already.

Edited by nosecone, 23 September 2013 - 17:16.

[Anderis]

These are random factors, though. Random occurrances are no problem for me. You can get unlucky; the SC can be called just as you pass the decision point for pit-in, and your rival who is 1 second behind you can pit and get a big advantage. I don't think the Race Director can be messing about worrying about what the impact on the competitive order is going to be before making a decision to deploy the SC - he should be thinking of the safe management of the incident, and he should only call the SC if it's necessary for that purpose. If it is necessary to call the SC, he should do it and never mind what it does to the lead battle - that's not the Race Director's concern. It's always been the case that random occurrances can affect races and championships - you can get caught up in a backmarker's accident and lose a win, or you can be the first to come up on a load of spilt oil - as a wise man once said, anything can happen in F1, and it usually does.

 

What the SC should not do is generate easily avoidable, deliberate unfairness, as opposed to incidental unfairness. E.g. if I'm leading the race and you're second, and there's 15s and three backmarkers between us; allowing the gaps between everybody to close up under the SC, so I'm first in the snake and you're fifth on the road and second in the race, with the three backmarkers in between - that's incidental unfairness inasmuch as my 15s gap has been eroded to maybe 3s at the restart. I've no problem with that as long as the purpose of the SC was to provide a period of safety of marshalls to do their work, not specifically to influence the lead battle. But if you then let the backmarkers overtake before restarting the race, that's just extra, deliberate unfairness inasmuch as it allows you to reduce the gap to next to nothing and it gives you an opportunity to attack me and maybe overtake me at the restart when previously I had you well and truly covered. It also unfairly reduces the lapped cars' gap to the leader from 1 entire lap to a matter of maybe 15s. I think we should worry about that kind of unnecessary unfairness first before worrying about whether the timing of the SC is going to randomly influence the lead battle.

I have to disagree thoroughly on that.

 

You state you have no problem with random factors, but you call some situations avoidable unfairness. To get rid of this of this "avoidable unfairness" we would need to change the rules, so we can call any random factor as an avoidable unfairness, because we chose what kind of unfairness we want to avoid and change the rules that way. I fail to see how unfairnesses you've described as avoidable are worse or less random than those which I've described. It's just your personal preference.

 

It also unfairly reduces the lapped cars' gap to the leader from 1 entire lap to a matter of maybe 15s.

And not giving drivers a chance to unlap themselves may cause that two cars, that were running within 3 seconds of each other before SC and were going to fight for position, now have the whole lap of gap between them, just because it happened for the race leader to be between them when SC was sent out. How is that less unfair than reducing a lap of a gap? Leader loses his advantage over the closest oponents anyway, so we should give them all equal chance and reduce all gaps to the previous cars to almost zero. I think it's far better than putting a gap that hasn't previously been there.

 

E.g. if I'm leading the race and you're second, and there's 15s and three backmarkers between us; allowing the gaps between everybody to close up under the SC, so I'm first in the snake and you're fifth on the road and second in the race, with the three backmarkers in between - that's incidental unfairness inasmuch as my 15s gap has been eroded to maybe 3s at the restart. I've no problem with that as long as the purpose of the SC was to provide a period of safety of marshalls to do their work, not specifically to influence the lead battle. But if you then let the backmarkers overtake before restarting the race, that's just extra, deliberate unfairness inasmuch as it allows you to reduce the gap to next to nothing and it gives you an opportunity to attack me and maybe overtake me at the restart when previously I had you well and truly covered.

What if you're leading the race with the 30 seconds of advantage over me but there are not backmarkers between us and I'm leading the next driver by 5 seconds and there are 2 backmarkers between me and him? At the restart I can put pressure on you and don't bother to defend although it was a driver behind me who was more of a threat for me than I for you before SC was sent out. The position of backmarkers among the frontrunners isn't any less random than missing an opportunity to pit.

 

I don't think the Race Director can be messing about worrying about what the impact on the competitive order is going to be before making a decision to deploy the SC - he should be thinking of the safe management of the incident, and he should only call the SC if it's necessary for that purpose. If it is necessary to call the SC, he should do it and never mind what it does to the lead battle - that's not the Race Director's concern.

It's really no problem for Race Director to wait a few dozens of seconds between sending SC out. Immidiate sending of SC doesn't improve safety. Marshalls need to wait a few minutes before they can start benefitting from that anyway, so a few additional dozens of seconds doesn't change much.

If there is a need of immediate intervention, Race Director should red flag the race.

Edited by Anderis, 23 September 2013 - 17:33.

[undersquare]

Surely there's no real need these days to have an actual road car ear'oling round the track?  All the time delays, and lots of cars going past the incident at delta speed before they pick up the train.

[redreni]

It's really no problem for Race Director to wait a few dozens of seconds between sending SC out. Immidiate sending of SC doesn't improve safety. Marshalls need to wait a few minutes before they can start benefitting from that anyway, so a few additional dozens of seconds doesn't change much.

If there is a need of immediate intervention, Race Director should red flag the race.

 

If there's a need of immediate intervention the race director must scramble the medical car. He won't do that without either calling the SC or red flagging the race. If the SC is called the reduction in speed of all cars is immediate because the delta times come into effect immediately. Waiting a dozen seconds may be feasible in some cases but definitely not in all, and not only do I regard your suggestion as impractical, I think it's wrong in principle for the race director to even think for a moment about how the timing of his decision to hit the yellow buton will affect the race. It's just not his job, and if the race director were to think along those lines it would call into question the integrity of the sport.

 

I fail to see how unfairnesses you've described as avoidable are worse or less random than those which I've described. It's just your personal preference.

 

Well, you see, it's about the intention of the rule. A set of simple SC rules (e.g. those that applied in 1995) can lead to big advantages or disadvantages for certain cars compared to if the SC never came out, but those rules were intended for no other purpose than to avoid the need for red flags, to allow a race to continue when otherwise it would have had to be stopped, and to provide a period of safety for marshalls to work. Any unfair consequence of the application of those rules was unintended and not easily avoidable.

 

A rule that says lapped cars can overtake does not have as its intention the avoidance of red flags or the provision of a period of safety for marshalls to work. It's not only unnecessary for those purposes, it's not even intended for those purposes. It's consciously intended to improve the show, and my beef with it is if you're going to put show-oriented rules in place, knowing they will create added unfairness, you might as well start giving stop-go penalties to Vettel just to improve the show by making him fight his way back into the lead.

 

And not giving drivers a chance to unlap themselves may cause that two cars, that were running within 3 seconds of each other before SC and were going to fight for position, now have the whole lap of gap between them, just because it happened for the race leader to be between them when SC was sent out. How is that less unfair than reducing a lap of a gap?

 

See above (further up the thread). If you keep the lapped cars lapped the amount of time gained or lost by one car to any rival can never exceed one lap. But if you give a free pass a car can be on the brink of going two laps down when the SC comes out, and yet when the SC pulls in that same car could be on the lead lap just a few seconds behind the leader. And there's no reason why a GP couldn't be won from such a position if the car that's three minutes off the lead and about to go two laps down happens to have fresher tyres than the leading cars. That would make F1 a laughing stock. As if the Super Mario overtake buttons aren't bad enough already...

 

So the unfairness is quantatively greater under the free pass system. It's also wrong in principle that a car should be allowed to unlap itself when the car that would wish to retain the lap's advantage isn't allowed to defend his position, which he would be able to do under green flag conditions, and it is wrong in principle because the origin and intention of the rule under which the free pass is made is unconnected with the original purposes of having a SC.

Edited by redreni, 23 September 2013 - 22:24.

[Lee Nicolle]

The main reason for the 'safety car' is to bunch up the field. Any excuse will do. It is not motorsport , it is entertainment.
That and occelfandsafety has ruined true motorsport. The safety car does have its uses, it should be used about 1 time in 10 that it is. This is in all motorsport, not just F1.
Events like Bathurst where the safety car runs in the top 10 with laps completed, most are unesecary. Though 'hero' racing drivers in all categories seem to have forgotten what any yellow flag is for. Most seem to think it is drive faster so as to catch up the field, double yellows is drive even faster!

[redreni]

The main reason for the 'safety car' is to bunch up the field. Any excuse will do. It is not motorsport , it is entertainment.
That and occelfandsafety has ruined true motorsport. The safety car does have its uses, it should be used about 1 time in 10 that it is. This is in all motorsport, not just F1.
Events like Bathurst where the safety car runs in the top 10 with laps completed, most are unesecary. Though 'hero' racing drivers in all categories seem to have forgotten what any yellow flag is for. Most seem to think it is drive faster so as to catch up the field, double yellows is drive even faster!

 

Thoroughly agree. SC was brought in to be used in situations that would previously have needed a red flag. At least 9/10 of all SC use now is for situations that would have been dealt with, prior to 1994, with yellow flags. If anybody imagines that that Torro Rosso nosing into the barrier would have provoked a red flag if it had happened in, say, Detroit in 1991, they're sorely mistaken. I thoroughly agree that in nearly every case the solution to SC controversey is to use double waved yellow flags and leave the SC in pit lane. But in cases where the SC is needed, it should be used for the purpose it was originally intended for and the SC regulations should reflect that, and that doesn't mean wave-bys.

[dau]

Thoroughly agree. SC was brought in to be used in situations that would previously have needed a red flag. At least 9/10 of all SC use now is for situations that would have been dealt with, prior to 1994, with yellow flags. If anybody imagines that that Torro Rosso nosing into the barrier would have provoked a red flag if it had happened in, say, Detroit in 1991, they're sorely mistaken. I thoroughly agree that in nearly every case the solution to SC controversey is to use double waved yellow flags and leave the SC in pit lane. But in cases where the SC is needed, it should be used for the purpose it was originally intended for and the SC regulations should reflect that, and that doesn't mean wave-bys.

Do you really would've wanted marshals working to remove that STR and repair the barriers on the tightest part of the circuit. partly unsighted, only under double yellows? I don't think that's a good idea. The safety standards of the early 90s shouldn't serve as a model for today's F1.

[Gyno]

easyest way to get lapped car to the back of the field would be to have them all enter pitlane and WAIT at pit exit until the last car who is on the lead lap passes pit exit and then let them go and rejoin the pack.

EASY SIMPLE and doesn't take 2-3 laps.

 

Restarts needs to change Aswell.

It should be like indycar,  2 Cars side by side in a line and driving slowly until the Green flag is waved.

Alot more exitment then what we see now.

 

When the leader slows down and holds everyone back and then drives off.

It's gurantees no action but indycars system there will be Plenty of action.

[SenorSjon]

Both accidents didn't take place in the same spot and there is a very simple reason why SC was deployed when Ricciardo crashed but not when di Resta crashed: Ricciardo's car was on track while di Resta's car was off-track in a run off area and, therefore, double-yellows were more than enough while marshalls were working to take the car away

It was the same corner if I remember correctly. Last year a HRT crashed there as well. The TR and FI were at most a few meters from the same spot. And waved double yellow means be prepared to stop on track. We have radio's telling drivers to brake at the tenth kerbstone in turn 4, to put on fuel mix 25 or in the case of Webber telling his KERS has failed. But they can't tell a car is crashed on track? Let race control talk to all drivers at once for this.

 

Do you really would've wanted marshals working to remove that STR and repair the barriers on the tightest part of the circuit. partly unsighted, only under double yellows? I don't think that's a good idea. The safety standards of the early 90s shouldn't serve as a model for today's F1.

 

The first lap is the most dangerous, the yellows are then waved. I thought the SC was an overreaction like so many in F1 these days. It is a bit rubber tile generation stuff.

 

@Gyno

Rosberg never intended to overtake Vettel after the SC. Few people are sharp after a SC these days with overtakes.

 

 

I stated somewhere (this thread?) you can lose all WDC points as leader with a SC near the end of the race. Suddenly you are at the back of the field in P18 with a puncture, while you have lapped till the top 8 before and you would have been 9th. Is that fair?

Edited by SenorSjon, 24 September 2013 - 10:20.

[redreni]

Do you really would've wanted marshals working to remove that STR and repair the barriers on the tightest part of the circuit. partly unsighted, only under double yellows? I don't think that's a good idea. The safety standards of the early 90s shouldn't serve as a model for today's F1.

 

Yes because I don't think the likelihood of somebody losing control of his car and running over a marshall at that corner would be any greater under double waved yellows than under the SC. The accident rate per racing lap under SC conditions is hardly any better than under green flag conditions, and considerably worse than under local yellows. If you put a local yellow out there really shouldn't be an accident - that's the point of yellow flags. Yes, there still might be an accident even though there shouldn't be, but that's true under the SC as well.

 

I think the over-use of the SC, if anything, promotes the assumption amongst drivers that the yellow flag doesn't mean much because if the situation were remotely serious, the SC would have been deployed. This actually hightens the danger in the initial seconds after a serious accident, before race control has had time to think whether to bring the SC out, because in those first few seconds the marshalls will automatically use yellow flags to warn drivers of the danger and, because the drivers don't think the yellow flags mean much, they just have a tiny lift and then go steaming in. If people knew the local warning flags actually meant something this wouldn't be such a problem.

[artista]

It was the same corner if I remember correctly. Last year a HRT crashed there as well. The TR and FI were at most a few meters from the same spot. And waved double yellow means be prepared to stop on track. We have radio's telling drivers to brake at the tenth kerbstone in turn 4, to put on fuel mix 25 or in the case of Webber telling his KERS has failed. But they can't tell a car is crashed on track? Let race control talk to all drivers at once for this.

...

They look similar because they both are left turns, but they aren't the same corner. I also thought at the beginning they were, but they aren't

 

Ricciardo crashed in turn 18 and di Resta in turn 7. Maybe the easiest way to see it is that Ricciardo crashes against red Fly Emirates ads right before the bridge, while di Resta crashes against yellow Pirelli ads

[squall1981]

easyest way to get lapped car to the back of the field would be to have them all enter pitlane and WAIT at pit exit until the last car who is on the lead lap passes pit exit and then let them go and rejoin the pack.

EASY SIMPLE and doesn't take 2-3 laps.

 

.........

 

the problem with that is those cars will have more fuel in the tank than those who didn't have to pit and fresher tyres, meaning they can then turn their engines up a notch and go for it, this would punish the guys that weren't quite lapped yet.

[Vepe1995]

easyest way to get lapped car to the back of the field would be to have them all enter pitlane and WAIT at pit exit until the last car who is on the lead lap passes pit exit and then let them go and rejoin the pack.

EASY SIMPLE and doesn't take 2-3 laps.

 

.........

 

the problem with that is those cars will have more fuel in the tank than those who didn't have to pit and fresher tyres, meaning they can then turn their engines up a notch and go for it, this would punish the guys that weren't quite lapped yet.

 

Well that's not a problem, because they would lose a lap. FIA can't just give them one lap back.

[Seanspeed]

Anything that increases time under the safety car is a bad thing in my book. In the previous rules - waiting an extra 3+ laps for lapped cars to unlap themselves was extremely boring.
That system also unfairly disavantaged the leading cars. Suddenly those at the back of the lead lap - often 1min + behind have nothing to lose by pitting for fresh rubber and restart just a few car lengths behind the leader. At least with the current system they then have to negotate the backmarkers so the leaders retain some of the advantage that they earnt.
Don't turn f1 into Nascar!

Sure the drivers are whinging because its hard for them, but they are looking out for their own interests not the sport. The old rules would have benefited all of them except for Vettel - of course you are going to be keen on the idea if you drive for a slower team!
Fact is - it was entertaining racing watching the drivers have to pick their way through the back markers - and the better drivers made progress quicker.

 

Very well put.  Current system is fine.  The purpose of a safety car period isn't to make things exciting again.  Drivers should be happy that the gap to the car in front is wiped out completely and accept that having to pass some backmarkers is a small price to pay in some cases. 

 

And I hate long safety car periods, too.  They're the worst.   

[Andrew Hope]

I thought the attitude since the first safety car up until 2003 or so was "them's the breaks, tough luck" if it came out at an unfortunate time for someone. When did this change?

[squall1981]

Well that's not a problem, because they would lose a lap. FIA can't just give them one lap back.

but still causes problems. lets say the leader has just lapped a Williams and  the other Williams is only 3 seconds up the road when an accident happens. should these 2 Williams cars be separated by a whole lap when they were only 3 seconds apart a few minutes earlier? what if the position they were fighting for was 10th?

 

or what if a mid/fast car decided to do a different strategy  and  make an early stop but expects to be fighting for decent pts but the stop puts him behind the runner way leader when he emerges completely ruining his race and ending all hopes of getting points.

 

there is no ideal solution tbf I think the current format works best, yes people can get screwed but it is very unlikely to destroy anyones race completely

[joshb]

Lapped cars should stay a lap down because they don't deserve to get put back on the lead lap

They should also be in between the leader and whoever because it reduces the leader's disadvantage of having all of his lead wiped out. If he can make a quick 2 seconds or so before his rivals get through the traffic, then fair enough

 

Alternatively, in this modern hi-tech era.. they could get race control to activate a safety car mode on the cars which reduces their speed to pit lane speed until the accident is cleared and then they let them go again and the gaps stay as they were beforehand

[Bleu]

I'm still waiting for following situation with current SC rules. 

 

* Some top driver loses a lap early

* While fighting for a position, he collides with Marussia/Caterham, continuing himself, the other driver out

* Safety car comes out

* Driver gets drive through penalty for the collision

* All in all, the driver has gained advantage for the collision he caused, even with that DT

[MikeTekRacing]

I'm still waiting for following situation with current SC rules. 

 

* Some top driver loses a lap early

* While fighting for a position, he collides with Marussia/Caterham, continuing himself, the other driver out

* Safety car comes out

* Driver gets drive through penalty for the collision

* All in all, the driver has gained advantage for the collision he caused, even with that DT

you can think of a lot of scenarios where it's actually efficient to cheat. Why do you assume you can bring out a safety car with crashing into another car yet your car to be perfectly fine?

[Gyno]

easyest way to get lapped car to the back of the field would be to have them all enter pitlane and WAIT at pit exit until the last car who is on the lead lap passes pit exit and then let them go and rejoin the pack.

EASY SIMPLE and doesn't take 2-3 laps.

 

.........

 

the problem with that is those cars will have more fuel in the tank than those who didn't have to pit and fresher tyres, meaning they can then turn their engines up a notch and go for it, this would punish the guys that weren't quite lapped yet.

 

Not Quite.

Reason why they are a lap down, is most often becuase their cars are 2-3 seconds a lap slower.

So they will still be very slow.

Also when they are allowed to Unlap them self they actually go flat out around the track and by doing so heating their tires up to optimal temp while others are slowly driving around with cold tires.

So they actually are more competative at the restart then the others are but still cant overtake because they are dead slow.

 

Unless ofcourse it's a top team car that had some problems and have lost a lap.

But then it's unfair to let him unlap himself.

 

Best thing is to have the lapped cars fall back by forcing them to drive throu the pitlane and wait for the pack to pass them.

Simple and takes only 1 lap and can be done when they are still cleaning up the wreckage of the track.

 

To have them unlap themself, it can only be done when the track is Compleatly clear and takes 2 laps atleast sometimes even longer.

[Spillage]

I agree with posters saying that the safety car is a necessary evil for reasons of, well, safety. What I don't like, however is the rule enabling cars to unlap themselves. To be honest, last year's system but still think that the easiest solution would be to just let the lapping cars overtake the backmarkers. I do not see any problems with this; sure, it may be a little harsh on the lapped traffic but if you leave them in the queue they're only going to be quickly lapped by the entire field anyway.

[SenorSjon]

I'm still waiting for following situation with current SC rules. 

 

* Some top driver loses a lap early

* While fighting for a position, he collides with Marussia/Caterham, continuing himself, the other driver out

* Safety car comes out

* Driver gets drive through penalty for the collision

* All in all, the driver has gained advantage for the collision he caused, even with that DT

That happened with Webber earlier this year. The SC stayed out extra long so he could rejoin the pack at the back. It was a real rule farce. He overtook guys fighting for points while a few laps earlier they had almost a lap on him.

[Kingshark]

Make the backmarkers fall behind the leading pack during the SC, rather than making them drive all the way around the circuit.

 

It does come with consequences, of course. When you're lapped, it's game over, not even a SC can save you.

[TimRTC]

Make the backmarkers fall behind the leading pack during the SC, rather than making them drive all the way around the circuit.

 

It does come with consequences, of course. When you're lapped, it's game over, not even a SC can save you.

 

Would not be hard to do, forcing the lapped cars to drive through the pit lane on the restart would probably be the safest and easiest way.

 

Obviously it does massively impact the race between two cars in the mid-pack if they were close but one had been just passed by the race leader, after the restart they would be a full lap down.

 

Perhaps it could be available as an option for the race control, if there is a big gap between the first lapped car and the last unlapped one.

[redreni]

I'm still waiting for following situation with current SC rules. 
 
* Some top driver loses a lap early
* While fighting for a position, he collides with Marussia/Caterham, continuing himself, the other driver out
* Safety car comes out
* Driver gets drive through penalty for the collision
* All in all, the driver has gained advantage for the collision he caused, even with that DT

Or, if you‘re not leading and the SC comes out in front of you and decides to hold you behind until it has passed the accident scene, you could just overtake it, gain a full minute, then 35 minutes later when the stewards make a decision, take a drive-through. What am I saying - that would never happen...

There is an alternative, of course, which is for the stewards to use their discretion and their brains. There is nothing in the regulations saying they must always stick to the recommended penalties and always give the same penalty for the same offence. If somebodyhas caused a collision and is going to gain 2 minutes from a SC that he caused, they can wait until the SC comes in and give a 90s stop-go. And they should.

[redreni]

That happened with Webber earlier this year. The SC stayed out extra long so he could rejoin the pack at the back. It was a real rule farce. He overtook guys fighting for points while a few laps earlier they had almost a lap on him.

 

They had more than a lap on him. He had to overtake them to get back on the same lap as them. They were required by the rules to allow him to do that under the SC, they weren't allowed to defend, and then they ended up finishing behind him. It really does make a mockery of the race when that happens.

[Mrluke]

Isnt the easy answer to let the lapped cars past at the start of last SC lap and they can go flat out to catch up? 

[SenorSjon]

They did that before they gave Webber a free pass on everyone and waited till he rejoined with nice warm tires and brakes so he could overtake easily.

[redreni]

Isnt the easy answer to let the lapped cars past at the start of last SC lap and they can go flat out to catch up? 

 

Yes it would be easy, you'd just need to amend the rules so that the delta times aren't enforced while the lapped cars are catching the pack, which shouldn't be an issue since the wave-by procedure only starts once the track is clear. But it would still add at least one extra, unnecessary lap before the course can go green. It would be easier still, and far preferable, to just keep the lapped cars lapped and get on with the race; if there are lapped cars, that's the only way you're going to get a restart the first time the leader passes the start line after the track is declared clear.

[Fourjays]

Was a bit silly at Singapore, waiting all that time for the backmarkers to catch back up. However, I didn't like it before when there were lapped cars mixed amongst the front runners either. Not because of entertainment or whatever, but because it seemed to be downright dangerous when you had considerably faster cars trying to race each other while simultaneously trying to pass backmarkers who were also racing amongst themselves at the same time. Backmarkers are terrible at getting out of the way under regular conditions.

 

I don't know why they don't do it in reverse to the current method - the frontrunners pass the backmarkers to get in order. Would make more sense than waiting ages for the backmarkers to catch up to the back of the pack.

[SpeedRacer`]

Let the backmarkers pass then restart the race, they don't need to have caught up, going back to 2011 and before implementation. Problem solved

Edited by SpeedRacer`, 25 September 2013 - 14:17.

[redreni]

[...]it seemed to be downright dangerous when you had considerably faster cars trying to race each other while simultaneously trying to pass backmarkers who were also racing amongst themselves at the same time. Backmarkers are terrible at getting out of the way under regular conditions.

 

I don't know why they don't do it in reverse to the current method - the frontrunners pass the backmarkers to get in order. Would make more sense than waiting ages for the backmarkers to catch up to the back of the pack.

 

In answer to you're question I'd be tempted to say "because it would be unnecessary and grossly unfair", but that doesn't stop them waving the lapped cars through under the current system, so I'm genuinely not sure.

 

On the point about backmarkers being "terrible" at getting out of the way - are they? Or do the cars doing the lapping simply lack patience, at times? F1 drivers have a way of making situations where there is a significant speed differential look incredibly dangerous, but that's entirely their choice to not leave themselves much of a margin. You only have to look at a WEC event where the speed differentials and the closing speeds between the class 1 prototypes and the gentlemen-drivers in GTE-Am is subtantially greater than between a Red Bull and a Marussia and where, because the organisers care about the integrity of the competition, they don't mess about with the running order before a SC restart, to see that these situations can be managed safely with a bit of common sense and patience on all sides.

 

Personally I think the only real danger with a SC restart with backmarkers between the leaders is that some of the less capable backmarkers can get flustered, and they get scared of getting a blue flag penalty because, under the F1 sporting regs, you have to let people by at the first opportunity, and so they let people by in daft places and then end up coming back on line very slowly, which can catch the people behind unawares. To improve matters I would suspend the blue flags for the first two laps after a SC restart, so the backmarkers don't have to move over if it's not a good place to do so, and the leaders won't suddenly find a virtually stationary Marussia in their path. If the backmarkers drive their line and the leaders have to actually make a proper overtaking move to get by, that would be a lot safer all round, in my view.

Edited by redreni, 25 September 2013 - 14:48.

[Spillage]

In answer to you're question I'd be tempted to say "because it would be unnecessary and grossly unfair", but that doesn't stop them waving the lapped cars through under the current system, so I'm genuinely not sure.

 

I'd agree that such a system would be no more unfair than the current one, but would add that if a lapped car is near the front of the safety car queue, it will lose a lap to the entire field anyway when the green flags come out. The close proximity of the other cars make that inevitable. Before the rule allowing backmarkers to unlap themselves, it always was game over for a lapped car near the front of the queue.

[redreni]

I'd agree that such a system would be no more unfair than the current one, but would add that if a lapped car is near the front of the safety car queue, it will lose a lap to the entire field anyway when the green flags come out. The close proximity of the other cars make that inevitable. Before the rule allowing backmarkers to unlap themselves, it always was game over for a lapped car near the front of the queue.

Depends why the lapped car is lapped, I guess. The lapped car might be the quickest man on the track. Which is why a slower car that is running a lap ahead of it should be entitled to remain a lap ahead until and unless the lapped car legitimately unlaps himself on the track under green flag conditions.

You see, I‘m not so put out by the wave-bys if the lapped cars being waved by are the slowest cars on the track and are going to finish last anyway. Often, if there is a late SC, a Marussia can finish on the lead lap just 20 odd seconds behind the winner despite being 3s a lap slower than the winner over the non-SC periods of the race. And while that‘s grossly unfair in a way, they still finish in the right position so the margins aren‘t really important.

What I‘m concerned about is when a faster car is in danger of being legitimately beaten by a slower one because he has been delayed by an accident of a mechanical problem or a botched pitstop or a penalty he has incurred, or any combination of those. I don‘t think it‘s right tve wave-bys to those cars, particularly when the effect is to negate a penalty imposed by the stewards.